Gunning of Ely, whose sermons were full of Hebrew and Greek, to the great delight of certain courtly ladies, who went to hear him preach, according to Charles II., because they did not understand him. This, however, was not the case with the really learned men of the day. Usher used in his sermons great plainness of speech. Who, on reading Leighton's Commentary on Peter, would suppose him to have been a good Hebrew scholar? Yet such was the case. 'Our parson,' said a poor countryman, 'is one Mr. Pococke, a plain, honest man; but, master, he is no Latiner.' And yet this man was the glory of his age. Bishop Beveridge, although a profoundly learned Oriental scholar, has left behind him works, the most simple and thoroughly Saxon of any in our language, with the exception of the Pilgrim's Progress. True learning differs widely from pedantry. The one is modest from what it does not know, the other proud from what it fancies it has acquired.

Having rapidly glanced over the efforts made by English Hebrew scholars, and the celebrity which they in consequence enjoyed throughout the learned world, we are induced to inquire into the opinion to be entertained of their acquirements in the present enlightened age.

It needs not much acquaintance with the philological works of continental critics and of those speaking our own language, to see that they very frequently quote from English Hebraicians of the seventeenth century. Let any one consult Winer's Realwörterbuch, de Wette's Lehrbuch der Historisch-kritischen Einleitung, u. s. w., Gesenius' Geschichte der Hebr. Sprache, and many other standard works, and he will meet with numerous references to the productions of Pococke, Walton, Usher, and others.

Nor indeed are these learned modern scholars slow to acknowledge their indebtedness to the eminent men referred to, and to speak of them in terms of high approbation. Thus Tholuck makes mention of the truly learned Spencer;' declares that 'peculiar notice is due to the Hora Hebraicæ et Talmudice of Lightfoot;' and affirms that 'the best of the older commentators on the Minor Prophets is that of Pococke,' which he pronounces to be 'thorough and profound.' Hengstenberg asserts that Pococke's commentaries exhibit diligence in the collection of exegetical materials, and a mode of explanation in general natural. Michaelis, Hoffmann and Delitzsch speak in high terms of Castell. Gesenius styles Brian Walton's Prolegomena, 'very learned disquisitions.' Ernesti, speaking of Gataker, declares that he excels in learning all the writers on the Hebraisms of the New Testament. He also praises Cartwright, as being one of the most learned authors who have sought to illustrate the New Testament from

Hebrew

Hebrew sources. Winer declares that Gataker wrote learnedly. Of the same illustrious men Professor Lee says: In our Walton, Castell, Pococke, and others of the same period, we had, indeed, Orientalists of the first celebrity,-men who, by the efforts of their mighty minds and almost incredible labours, left behind them monuments of industry and learning never to be excelled.'

It is by no means, however, asserted that these scholars were, as such, perfect. Far otherwise. Although in advance of their age they were far behind ours. There is a heaviness about their style, and a tedious enumeration and refutation of different opinions in their commentaries far from being either agreeable or profitable. They were deficient in that tact, that enlargedness of view, and that thorough knowledge of the principles of criticism and of language in general, which distinguish the great critics of the present day. These, however, were not so much the faults of the men, as of the age. Their peculiar excellencies were their own-called forth amidst much that was uncongenial. Let their attainments and their productions be compared with those of students in the department of natural philosophy who lived at the same time, and with what advantage do they appear. The efforts of the one class are almost lost sight of amidst the advances of modern science; whereas those of the other are still regarded with merited admiration. The lapse of ages will invest the former with more and more indistinctness, the latter with an ever expanding and brightening halo of glory.

While we repair to Gesenius and Nordheimer for lucid definitions and grammatical frame-work, to Ewald for scientific investigations and fundamental research, and to Fürst, Bopp, and Humboldt, for the connection of languages and the development of roots; let us also imitate the untiring energy, application, and reverential piety of our forefathers, and endeavour to prove to posterity that their descendants have neither lost their spirit nor their mental power.

Never, till England produce more eminent scholars, will the names of our old Hebraicians be remembered with aught but the deepest respect for their talents, and the most heart-felt veneration for their unobtrusive piety. Nor even then. Should such arise, emulating German philologians in their profound learning, and surpassing them in child-like reverence for God's Holy word,and may Almighty God hasten the time, the mantle of their brethren of the seventeenth century will have fallen upon them, their celebrity will have stimulated them, their spirit will have characterized them. Our ancient and honourable name will have been regained, and England's sons will once more be regarded,

after

after the lapse of centuries, as the countrymen of Pococke, Lightfoot, Castell, Walton, and Usher.

The following is a list of Hebrew grammars and lexicons existing in manuscript in the libraries of the Colleges and the British Museum. Doubtless it might be greatly enlarged by a careful examination of the literary stores at Cambridge and Oxford.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION.

It is of no small importance in studying Scripture, or indeed any other book, to ascertain if possible the general principles according to which its structure is regulated-the age in which any work was written, the persons to whom it was addressed, the prejudices which then existed, the object which the author had in view—all these things must have had influence in determining the nature of the writing, and must therefore be borne in mind in seeking an interpretation. It is an ascertained fact that, on many points, the Holy Scriptures are silent where we might have expected revelation. A certain amount of knowledge is communicated, and then further curiosity is forbidden. We are led up, as it were, to the mountain-top, from which we hope to survey the promised land, and find to our disappointment that mists intercept the view. This is to be expected from the condensed nature of the sacred canon. The Bible, from first to last, suggests rather than exhausts the truths which it communicates-Now we know in part. Occasional glimpses are all that are permitted; yet from this silence and obscurity we infer in a measure the plan of the divine word. It is not altogether a mystery why so many subjects are left untouched, why others are only partially revealed. Where the revelation is greatest the things revealed are obviously of the most importance, and conversely we infer, if any truth is withheld, it is less desirable that we should be made acquainted with it. So far allusion is made to a subject which has been already discussed in this Journal, and for the subjoined reason- -as it was there shown that Scripture is silent on certain topics, so we now shall find that it has been silent to certain men. In other words, as the revelation is limited in its range of subjects, so has there always been a limit to the numbers of those to whom it is addressed. These are kindred facts: and though it is, perhaps, less easy to account for the latter than for the former, nevertheless we accept it as a thing ascertained, and as such it is not without its use. Parallel facts are often the only explanation we have of natural phenomena. The colours of the rainbow are accounted for by the colours transmitted through the prism, though neither the rainbow nor the prism explains why light should be compounded of seven elements. Do we ask why the Lord God has hidden his dealings from one nation or century?

• See Inferential Reasoning, etc., from the Silence of Scripture', Journal of Sacred Literature, No. VIII. p. 277.

we

we can only reply, that he has done the same with regard to another.

It is our object in the present article to give an answer to the question, Why did not Jesus show himself to his enemies after he rose from the dead? This is a question relating to a particular event, but we hope to show that it admits of a general answer; or rather, that the particular reply that may be made to it involves the solution of one of the most comprehensive problems connected with the subject of divine revelations. The appearance of Christ after his resurrection was, in the strictest sense of the term, a revelation, and his refusal to appear before those who crucified him was one instance among many others of the withholding of 'heavenly things' from a certain section of mankind. Let this hint suffice for the present to justify our coupling this subject with the more general one above alluded to. The sceptic boldly asks, 'Why is a divine message shrouded in ambiguities?' He does not deny that the Creator of the world may, if he chooses, give a revelation of himself to his creatures. He assumes an appearance of candour in allowing that God may promulgate moral laws for man's guidance and that he may reveal to him a future state. But he argues that it is contrary to reason that such a divine communication should be of a nature that would leave man in doubt of its purport. No, he adds, the laws of heaven should be written on the broad sky and make themselves apparent to every beholder. The convictions respecting a future state should force themselves on the mind and be as palpable as the fact of personal existence. Doubt should be made impossible. Instead of this, the inquirer into the things of God has to grope his way in the dark, to depend on a balance of probabilities, to weigh evidence often slender, sometimes contradictory, and never be able to arrive at conclusions at all approaching the clearness of mathematical demonstration.

Now our Lord's resurrection was in itself the strongest and most palpable declaration of a future state. If there be no resurrection of the dead,' says the Apostle, then is Christ not risen.' And conversely we may make a legitimate comment. If Christ is risen there is also a resurrection of the dead. The proof of the one carries with it the certainty of the other. The strongest evidence that could be given was the personal presence of him who had been dead, but this was alone vouchsafed to his chosen followers. Here then arises another sceptical objection which runs closely parallel with the general one. 'Jesus,' they will say, predicted his own resurrection. On this depended his whole mission. He foretold it to the Jews, he foretold it to Pilate. Why did he not verify his words to those who had heard

6

them?